Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

I have derailed it, sorry I forgot actually questioning anything was against the official party line here. From your own extensive knowledge of firebombs is it?

Its not questioning things thats the problem, its you changing the argument every single time you get caught out.



Me: The Captions were misleading
You: Which ones?
Me: The one that said I firebomb was thrown when it was clearly not
You: They had Firebombs
Me: Thats not the point, it was clearly a firework
You: Here is a video with a firebomb in it, hence, they had firebombs, the used firebombs, that must be a firebomb in the video, the captions are honest and not misleading
Me: Thats just a bottle, how do you know its a firebomb? Its not even labeled as such
You: Ohhhhhhhh Sorrrry, I didnt know you were such an expert on Firebombs, im sorry to question the part line etc.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Ah here lads. This is just getting ridiculous now. Next you'll be saying the knives aren't really knives of any kind at all.

Yeah the smears and lies are getting riduclous. There is no firebomb, the knives are things you would find on a boat, as are all the other "weapons", that the IDF found. The IDF are engaged in a desperate attempt to smear the people they brutally murdered, and I am personally disgusted by there constant pathetic attempts.

Honestly, saying a plastic bottle is a fire bomb really takes the cake, considering all the lies and smears from the IDF.

**EDIT**
So, prinz, any evidence that the plastic bottle is a firebomb? You have yet to provide any what so ever, and are constantly insisting you are correct, so I want some proof then.
**END EDIT**

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

I have derailed it, sorry I forgot actually questioning anything was against the official party line here. From your own extensive knowledge of firebombs is it?

Actually that looks like a bottle of Isotonic Solution NaCL. Its used for medical purposes.

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Ah here lads. This is just getting ridiculous now. Next you'll be saying the knives aren't really knives of any kind at all.

Another derailment...




Its a bottle on a ship...


There is clearly no way you can be sure its a firebomb but yet you are. It could easily be a bottle for holding motor oil, water or some other ship bollocks.

Wibbs

Actually on the fire bomb notion, I'm surprised that they werent lobbing loads of them. I mean you're on a ship, with a dirty great fuel tank, access to bottles and flares and apparently fireworks and you want to resist and apparently planned to do so. Well molotov cocktails would be the first thing I would think of. It sounds like any resistance was on the spot and not exactly thought through.

sceptre

I see increasing heat and decreasing light with my moderator hat on.

Right now, I want a lot more calm from everyone. Deep breaths, take a little mental walk and come back.

/mod

gandalf

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually on the fire bomb notion, I'm surprised that they werent lobbing loads of them. I mean you're on a ship, with a dirty great fuel tank, access to bottles and flares and apparently fireworks and you want to resist and apparently planned to do so. Well molotov cocktails would be the first thing I would think of. It sounds like any resistance was on the spot and not exactly thought through.

Its not a firebomb at all its a isotonic solution that would be adminished Intravenously nomally for such cases as Shock, Hyponatremia, Blood Transfusions (note there appears to be blood on the bottle and the medical type tubing in the top of the bottle), Resuscitation and Fluid challenges .

Any comments on the video now bambooze?

prinz

wes wrote: »

I have no reason to trust a word they say.

tbh that really sums up your position on the whole thing.

Fuhrer wrote: »

Its not questioning things thats the problem, its you changing the argument every single time you get caught out..

I didn't change the argument you did. First you said the caption was misleading because it was a firework, then you asked for evidence of firebombs which I provided, then you claimed based on the burning pattern it couldn't have been a firebomb etc...

wes wrote: »

Honestly, saying a plastic bottle is a fire bomb really takes the cake, considering all the lies and smears from the IDF.

It's not just a plastic bottle. If they showed en empty bottle of sparkling water on a windowsill I'd say they were BS us. I can use my own eyes to see that bottle was being used for something not quite right.

gandalf wrote: »

Actually that looks like a bottle of Isotonic Solution NaCL. Its used for medical purposes.

Do they usually come with what looks like a basic fuse sticking out the top?

Fuhrer wrote: »

There is clearly no way you can be sure its a firebomb but yet you are. It could easily be a bottle for holding motor oil, water or some other ship bollocks.

There is no way you can be sure it wasn't a firebomb, but you are. It could easily be used as such.

Wibbs

gandalf wrote: »

Its not a firebomb at all its a isotonic solution that would be adminished Intravenously nomally for such cases as Shock, Hyponatremia, Blood Transfusions (note there appears to be blood on the bottle and the medical type tubing in the top of the bottle), Resuscitation and Fluid challenges .

It certainly could be seen as for that purpose alright, the "fuse"being the medical tubing.

My point was that if they had planned in advance to lob firebombs there's hardly a better place I can think of to have the makings of firebombs. 1000's of gallons of fuel, loadsa bottles and all sorts of ignition sources. That's why the organised firebomb notion just doesnt make any sense.

bambooze

Fuhrer wrote: »

Bambooze is being held out to dry because hes making statements that he cant back up.

For example, he keeps claiming that there is legitimate reasons for holding on to the footage and only releasing heavily edited versions of it but has repeatedly refused to offer any good reasons for it.

I gave several reasons and all are possible, I did not say likely and I did not say such was the case with any vids they found.

I was well aware when I posted that there are legitimate reasons that you all would jump on me for that and you all either outright denied the possibility that there could be any reasons or asked me for examples which I provided. It matters not one jot how likely they are, they are still possible and my point stands.

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Do they usually come with what looks like a basic fuse sticking out the top?

If by basic fuse you mean IV line...

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

No there's plenty of people here who have, and continue, to defend the actions of the flotilla, believing they hold zero responsibility for the situation and that every one of their testimony should believed and taken as fact.

Here's why I'm reluctant to blame the flotilla. They were on a good mission, to bring aid and comfort to people who we're suffering, whether by materials or by bringing the world's attention to their plight(ie. if you assume it was all about PR).

It's basically their word against the IDF's.

Except:

The IDF confiscated all the evidence and won't let anyone touch it.

The IDF have a known track record for lying about stuff like this (eg WP mentioned earlier in this thread)

The IDF held people without charge for 3 days to prevent them telling their side of the story.

The IDF killed people.

It's very hard for any logical and reasonable person who isn't biased in favour of Israel (or against Muslims) to take the IDF's side in this when every single action they have taken in this incident has been dodgy in the extreme and when everything they do afterwards is what someone trying to cover up evidence of their crime would do.

Bambooze is just being hung out because he is in the minority. I haven't and doubt I'll see you attacking those with extreme bias who views coincide with your own.

No. He's being hung out because he's resorting to utterly ridiculous arguments in defence of the IDF's actions...

Like the suggestion that the reason the IDF are editing the videos of them brutalising people is in order to protect the privacy of their victims.

I mean that is such a ridiculous thing to say that they haven't invented a word for how crazy it is.

And really, if that isn't proof of bias (along with the unquestioning support and defence and every single Israeli action in this incident), I don't know what is.

Fuhrer

bambooze wrote: »

I gave several reasons and all are possible, I did not say likely and I did not say such was the case with any vids they found.

I was well aware when I posted that there are legitimate reasons that you all would jump on me for that and you all either outright denied the possibility that there could be any reasons or asked me for examples which I provided. It matters not one jot how likely they are, they are still possible and my point stands.

Come on, possible is such a broad an ill defined set its hardly worth mentioning at all.


One possible reason they took the footage, covering up evidence of UFO's

etc.


You seem where im going with this.


If you were the IDF, what reasons would you have for not releasing it?

doncarlos

Bambooze, Prinz

These are indisputable facts;

1. There was a video released by the IDF showing their soldiers being attacked when they were boarding
2. Footage of what happened before and after that would prove what happened is being withheld by the IDF
3. The IDF have made claims and now have withdrawn them.
4. The reports from the IDF and EVERYONE on the boats conflict
5. The IDF and Israel have been known to lie in the past.

What compels you to believe what the IDF are telling you?

Memnoch

bambooze wrote: »

I gave several reasons and all are possible, I did not say likely and I did not say such was the case with any vids they found.

I was well aware when I posted that there are legitimate reasons that you all would jump on me for that and you all either outright denied the possibility that there could be any reasons or asked me for examples which I provided. It matters not one jot how likely they are, they are still possible and my point stands.

They are not possible except in the land where Israel fires chocolates not bullets and where tanks and bulldozers run over grass not peaceful protesters and where white phospherous is actually orange juice flowing generously.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

It's not just a plastic bottle. If they showed en empty bottle of sparkling water on a windowsill I'd say they were BS us. I can use my own eyes to see that bottle was being used for something not quite right.

Your right it was not right that the bottle had to be used at all. It was used to treat someone who should not have been injured at all.

Do they usually come with what looks like a basic fuse sticking out the top?

Look very closely at the video prinz, that bloody fluid in your fuse, and their is wire around the bottle because it has to be raised higher than the patient.

There is no way you can be sure it wasn't a firebomb, but you are. It could easily be used as such.

Its obvious it is not a firebomb, it is a nearly spent bottle of Saline Solution used to treat one of the injured or dead on the ship.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

Its not a firebomb at all its a isotonic solution that would be adminished Intravenously nomally for such cases as Shock, Hyponatremia, Blood Transfusions (note there appears to be blood on the bottle and the medical type tubing in the top of the bottle), Resuscitation and Fluid challenges .

Any comments on the video now bambooze?

Sorry I'm not quite following this thread - are you referring to the vid with what appears to be a firebomb being thrown over the side onto soldiers in the rib below?

Foxtrol

Fuhrer wrote: »

Bambooze is being held out to dry because hes making statements that he cant back up.

For example, he keeps claiming that there is legitimate reasons for holding on to the footage and only releasing heavily edited versions of it but has repeatedly refused to offer any good reasons for it.

Yes but they are potentially legitimate reasons nonetheless. In all likelihood the IDF are trying to find parts which agree to their side of the story but the majority of the reasons bambooze brought up are potentially viable. Just like I disbelieve those who claim that those on board didn't know who was attacking them and "were only defending themselves". As yet no one can back up these statements with any un-biased facts but it doesn't give me or others the right to attempt to shout them down.

Irlandese

Memnoch wrote: »

There are not, your claims to the contrary are dishonest, disingenuous and the only reason you are saying this is because you want the atrocity to be covered up.

No, friend, I am afraid bambooze is definitely right on all counts here. In fact, under EU legislation, regarding privacy, it would be illegal to show same unedited.

Memnoch

Irlandese wrote: »

No, friend, I am afraid bambooze ir right on all counts here.

Please tell me your joking.

wes

prinz wrote: »

tbh that really sums up your position on the whole thing.

Why would I trust a word they have said, when the IDF have lied about Al Qaeda links, and there constantly changing story.

prinz wrote: »

It's not just a plastic bottle. If they showed en empty bottle of sparkling water on a windowsill I'd say they were BS us. I can use my own eyes to see that bottle was being used for something not quite right.

So you have no proof that it was a firebomb then? Now, you position is the plastic bottle was being used for something no quite right, what would that be exactly? Have any proof that it was going to be used for as you claim above for "something not quite right"?

As it stand, it is just a plastic bottle and I have seen no actual proof that says otherwise. Get back to me when you have some actual proof.

digme

bambooze wrote: »

Sorry I'm not quite following this thread - are you referring to the vid with what appears to be a firebomb being thrown over the side onto soldiers in the rib below?

Have you heard of adobe after effects?
With time, anything is possible to put into the videos now.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Sorry I'm not quite following this thread - are you referring to the vid with what appears to be a firebomb being thrown over the side onto soldiers in the rib below?

Its between 0.51 & 0.53 on the video entitled Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers

On the idfnadesk channel on your favourite youtube. Can't wait for your comments on this

Wibbs

bambooze wrote: »

Sorry I'm not quite following this thread - are you referring to the vid with what appears to be a firebomb being thrown over the side onto soldiers in the rib below?

No,, the photo released by the IDF as an example of a firebomb. Bottle containing liquid and something at the top. BTW what is in the video is not a firebomb. It could be a flare, but flares by their very purpose burn for much much longer. A firebomb requires a shatterable vessel, ignition and fuel to sustain it. IE a molatov cocktail. Glass bottle filled with petrol/deisel(the latter better), with a rag for ignition. Adding in plain sugar increases the effectiveness. So can you at least get the description right? Whatever it was it was not a firebomb.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes but they are potentially legitimate reasons nonetheless. In all likelihood the IDF are trying to find parts which agree to their side of the story but the majority of the reasons bambooze brought up are potentially viable. Just like I disbelieve those who claim that those on board didn't know who was attacking them and "were only defending themselves". As yet no one can back up these statements with any un-biased facts but it doesn't give me or others the right to attempt to shout them down.

What do you mean no one can back up those statements?

Eye-witness reports (of which there have been PLENTY) are accepted in pretty much every single legitimate court of law. And those eye-witness reports CANNOT be dismissed simply on the basis that they come from the victim, otherwise no one would ever be convicted of rape.

When taking into account eye-witness reports the key is the credibility of the person giving the report. And most of these reports are coming from international citizens in good standing. Politicians, novelists, journalists, writers.

While it's been demonstrated innumerable times and I believe IRREFUTABLY that the IDF have no credible standing.

As for more objective and unquestoinable evidence? Oh wait, the IDF siezed it all and refuse to show it to anyone. But hey, lets find some random reason to justify this that takes the blame away from the IDF because well, we're all just SOOO impartial here, and not trying to abet a cover-up AT ALL.

P. Breathnach

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually on the fire bomb notion, I'm surprised that they werent lobbing loads of them. I mean you're on a ship, with a dirty great fuel tank, access to bottles and flares and apparently fireworks and you want to resist and apparently planned to do so. Well molotov cocktails would be the first thing I would think of. It sounds like any resistance was on the spot and not exactly thought through.

I'm pleased to say that I have no special expertise on firebombs, and I have forgotten more chemistry than I remember (I'm less pleased about the latter). I do know, however, that to make a firebomb you need a highly volatile material, and I'm pretty sure that the sort of fuel or lubrication oil that you might find on a ship would not be suitable for such a purpose. If there were Molotov cocktails on board, I would suspect that they were prepared in advance of the flotilla sailing. That does not gel with the fact that all other weaponry shown either was not weaponry at all or looked like the sort of thing you might might grab and use in a fight.

bambooze

Memnoch wrote: »

The IDF confiscated all the evidence and won't let anyone touch it.

So far yes, I am not disputing that. Although I'd qualify that by saying we dont actually know that they didn't let anyone touch it yet.

The IDF held people without charge for 3 days to prevent them telling their side of the story.

Whats stopping them now?

The IDF killed people.

There was clearly a fight, two were tangoing in this incident.

Like the suggestion that the reason the IDF are editing the videos of them brutalising people is in order to protect the privacy of their victims.

Again I say, it is a possible reason for editing, no matter how unlikely it is still possible and you have no evidence to prove otherwise.

digme

lads anyone with a computer can insert anything they like into a video and make it look real,kids are doing this on youtube.

You want firebombs? Here look, a child made this on his computer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB-BlIb4ylE

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

Here's why I'm reluctant to blame the flotilla. They were on a good mission, to bring aid and comfort to people who we're suffering, whether by materials or by bringing the world's attention to their plight(ie. if you assume it was all about PR).

It's basically their word against the IDF's.

Except:

The IDF confiscated all the evidence and won't let anyone touch it.

The IDF have a known track record for lying about stuff like this (eg WP mentioned earlier in this thread)

The IDF held people without charge for 3 days to prevent them telling their side of the story.

The IDF killed people.

It's very hard for any logical and reasonable person who isn't biased in favour of Israel (or against Muslims) to take the IDF's side in this when every single action they have taken in this incident has been dodgy in the extreme and when everything they do afterwards is what someone trying to cover up evidence of their crime would do.

Yes i agree that it would be very hard for an unbiased person to agree with every action the IDF has taken. Likewise, I believe it is very hard for an unbiased person to agree with every action the greater Flotilla group has taken. I also believe an unbiased person could, however, find rational logical explanations as to why either side took the decisions they made. Doing this does not mean you have to necessarily agree with the action itself.

No. He's being hung out because he's resorting to utterly ridiculous arguments in defence of the IDF's actions...

Like the suggestion that the reason the IDF are editing the videos of them brutalising people is in order to protect the privacy of their victims.

I mean that is such a ridiculous thing to say that they haven't invented a word for how crazy it is.

And really, if that isn't proof of bias (along with the unquestioning support and defence and every single Israeli action in this incident), I don't know what is.

Im sure many here and around the world would claim the Israelis were monsters if they posted videos of them blowing protesters brains out. Is that the reason why they're not giving out the videos? Probably not. Is the reason why more "eyewitnesses" haven't come out to say that they saw fellow crew mates try to murder Israeli commandos because it never happened? I doubt it. However, just because I doubt it doesn't make it a potential reason. Just very very very unlikely.

sceptre

Irlandese wrote: »

No, friend, I am afraid bambooze is definitely right on all counts here. In fact, under EU legislation, regarding privacy, it would be illegal to show same unedited.

Under what legislation now? Please support your claim of fact (as the forum charter explicitly allows me to request) with a reference to specific EU legislation regarding privacy that successfully illustrates your point, including how it applies to events like this, aboard a Comoros-registered boat sailing ex-Turkey in international waters boarded by an Israeli group. You'll note the lack of anything to do with the EU in there. Merely having a few (or a lot of) EU citizens on the boat doesn't make a difference. I'll take a legislation reference and a supporting quote from that reference please, an explanation of how it applies to what I've listed would be uber-cool too.